Posted
by
Soulskillon Friday February 11, 2011 @05:45PM
from the somebody-invent-a-science-gun dept.

BJ_Covert_Action writes "The House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations has released a list of proposed spending cuts for the US Federal Government. The proposed cuts include reductions in spending on many science organizations and funds such as NASA, NOAA, nuclear energy research, fossil fuel energy research, clean coal research, the CDC, the NIH, and numerous EPA programs. There are also quite a few cuts proposed on domestic services, such as Americorps and high speed rail research. The House Appropriations Chairman, Hal Rogers, acknowledges that the cuts go deep, and would hurt every district across the country. But they are still deemed necessary to rein in Congressional spending. Notoriously absent from the proposed budget cuts are two of the largest spending sinks in the federal budget: the Department of Defense and Social Security."

Well, at least to the party that has a majority in the House of Representatives.

OTOH, since the U.S. government has neither a unicameral legislature nor parliamentary soveriegnty, but instead has a bicameral legislature and legislative/executive power separation with an executive veto on legislation, a simple majority in one house of the legislature just gives you a certain degree of negotiating power, not the power to dictate policy.

"OTOH, since the U.S. government has neither a unicameral legislature nor parliamentary soveriegnty, but instead has a bicameral legislature and legislative/executive power separation with an executive veto on legislation, a simple majority in one house of the legislature just gives you a certain degree of negotiating power, not the power to dictate policy."

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but..doesn't the house have a bit MORE power when it comes to the budget...aren't they the ones that actually FUND prog

All revenue-related bills (funding or de-funding) must originate in the House, but they still have to pass the Senate and the President to take effect. The House cannot unilaterally enact a funding measure, nor can it unilaterally cut funding. If, however, a previous bill has been passed to enact some sort of program, but that bill didn't include any sort of provisions to fund the program, the House could refuse to pass a bill funding that program, effectively killing it all by themselves since the Senate

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but..doesn't the house have a bit MORE power when it comes to the budget...

When it comes to taxation, the House has a special procedural role (any revenue-raising bills must originate in the House; Art. I, Sec. 7 of the Constitution), but they don't have any more substantive power even there, since the bill still has to pass a majority vote of both houses and not be vetoed, or have a veto overridden by a 2/3 majority of both houses.

When it comes to spending, the House doesn't even have that special procedural role.

Part of the problem is that anybody who proposes DoD cuts is immediately labeled a dangerous agitator who wants to embolden our enemies and put American lives at risk. There's a large and well-funded industry that's dedicated to perpetuating this myth, and they're frighteningly effective at their job. If we're to ever get the deficit situation under control, it will require a certain degree of maturity from the electorate -- along with the realization that there's enough pork in the defense budget to make a bacon replica of the Hoover Dam.

We also need a certain degree of maturity and a solidly-grounded perspective on taxes, as well -- but that's neither here nor there.

Actually, Defense spending is one of the few pieces of government spending which has been trending downward [cbo.gov]. It picked up again after 9/11, but is still near historical lows. The outrage over the amount of military spending made sense back in the 1960s - if we were at Vietnam War-era spending levels today, the Defense budget would be around $1.2 trillion instead of only $660 billion. Our modern levels of defense spending are only slightly above the world's average if you factor in Japan's GDP (we are obligated by the peace treaty ending WWII to provide for Japan's national defense - a treaty I agree is long overdue for renegotiation). People keep dragging it up sometimes not adjusting for inflation, and sometimes adjusting for inflation but not for economic and population growth. If you compare defense spending as a percentage of GDP, it was on a clear downward trend prior to 9/11 unlike just about every other part of the budget.

It's the social programs (primarily Medicare/Medicaid) which are ballooning out of control [cbo.gov] and busting the budget. Those are the sacred cows we need to sacrifice (or at least pass some common sense reforms) if we want to get the budget under control.

And another stat I'm sure will throw people here for a loop. It was actually George W. Bush who increased non-DoD science spending the most [aaas.org] of modern Presidents (though merely restoring it to 1980s levels as % of GDP).

I wish your post was true, but unfortunately it's only a half-truth. The institutional spending done by the DoD may be trending downward, but the operational spending done by the DoD is astronomical. The war on two fronts is not included in the DoD budget, nor are the long-term expenses such as the debt that the war accrued and the expenses relating to war casualties.

DoD represents 20% of the budget. That's the same as social security. Medicare and Medicaid put together add up to 23%; either one of them alone is substantially smaller than DoD. Defense spending is not by any possible standard dwarfed by those programs.

The $660 billion I quoted included Overseas Contingency Operations (the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) [defense.gov]. Total baseline DoD funding in FY2010 was $534 billion, OCO was $130 billion, for a total $664 billion.

Where is the downward trend that you talked about? From your document:

Come on, sing it with me. You all know the words.....Provide for the common defense, promote the GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity... do ordain and esta-a-a-blish this Constitution for the, uh, United States o-o-of A-me-ri-caaaaa

Ah, Schoolhouse Rock. Helping people remember the ENTIRE preamble to the Constitution since 1975. Or some people, at any rate.

Do you think we could get Lynn Ahrens to sing the rest of it for us? I think Article I Section 9 is pr

"Come on, sing it with me. You all know the words.....Provide for the common defense, promote the GENERAL WELFARE..."

Yeah, but welfare back then, didn't mean what welfare does now. They didn't mean for programs to hand out money to people or support their lives/livestyles. It didn't mean federal government handouts, or wealth redistribution.

It means all sorts of things. It means, and I quote, "promote the general welfare". All kinds of things promote the general welfare, and some of 'em include handouts.

How much handouts promote the general welfare without harming it? I dunno. Maybe much, much less than we have right now. It's the kind of thing we can debate. But I can't debate it when people pick and choose the parts of the constitution they remember. If your reading of it stops at "provide for the common defense" then we're literally

The preamble, while making a catchy song, doesn't actually lay out what any of the rules associated are with the goals. It's the abstract. The articles and amendments are where the debates and wrangling all happen, and where they should happen. Promoting the general welfare is an intentionally vague term to let everyone know that the document has really good intentions. Which I think is great and something that many of us forget today.

The rest of the document does its darnedest to not be vague, and the authors did their best to be as clear as possible. It is my humble opinion that the federal government did grow, over the years, into an organization that holds much more power than the founding fathers desired. I don't believe that handouts were/are part of the domain of the federal government, but rather of the states. The 10th amendment grants the states the powers not granted to the federal government. They have every right to give as many handouts as they can afford. I know how naive that sounds, and I'm sorry. I see how it is, and I understand that it is very difficult to undo over 200 years of scope creep.

As for the common defense: See Article I, Section 8 for the legislative power involving the military. Article II, Section 2 is the Commander in Chief clause that grants him/her the power to command the military.

So yea, the preamble is a nice pre-summary, but the actual jurisdiction and power lies in the articles and amendments.

You know, it's strange that this entire "promote the general welfare" argument has any traction at all. I mean it's completely new to the stage. Founding fathers and statement alike throughout the years found nothing in the constitution that would allow the government to take from one person and give to another.

Even FDR publicly stated the government had no right to get involved in social welfare. I said

"As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not beensurr

All taxes are wealth redistribution, they take from us all and spend on things we all in theory need. Surely a social safety net is far more important than invading nations half way around the world. If you don't like paying for civilization I would be glad to provide you a one way ticket to Somalia or Liberia. If you decide to come back to the States I would require you give my money back so I can continue my "Educate a Libertarian Program".

Yeah, problem is that the preamble of the Constitution has never been interpreted as a substantive source of legal authority for the federal government. Hint: It's the contents of the document, not the "introductory summary of what the document is about" that is where the powers are granted.

The General Welfare clause is in Section 8, where it grants Congress:"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general

Also, that grant is to provide for the general welfare of the states, not the people who inhabit those states. Nobody even tries to use that clause to pass social programs. It's too absurd. Instead, they use the interstate commerce clause. Thanks to FDR and his threats to stack the Supreme Court if they didn't give him what he wanted, a farmer who grows his own wheat on his own land to feed his own pigs is engaging in interstate commerce (Wickard v. Filburn [wikipedia.org]). Which really means that no matter what you

As I always reply when reading this. It says promote the general welfare, it doesn't say provide.

I think "general" should be a key word here.

General welfare seems most easily applied when the government good being done helps everyone. Stuff like roads, infrastructure, bridges, etc. These are projects that are too big for any one group to easily do, but benefits society as a whole in a direct manner.

Sure, making sure people don't starve is good for the whole of society, as well as providing internet to low income housing, as well as subsidizing farmers (all to an extent) but direct good is done thro

No, it isn't. The Constitution does not provide authority for a standing army, and it's quite clear from the writings of the Founding Fathers that maintaining a standing army was considered outside the authority of the federal government.

Guess we followed those crazy ole founding fathers through the Revolutionary war, 1812, various collisions with Spain and Mexico, those cute little European in 1917 and 1941, Korea, VietNam, Iraq a couple of times, Afghanistan, and so on.

I love the CDC cuts. Did we learn nothing from the 'volcano research' disaster that was Louisiana Gov Bobby Jindal? Criticize something only to have that very thing's usefulness be brought front and center just weeks later.

Can't wait till we find out the next bird flu *is* a pandemic and we're screwed because we stopped that wasteful Center for Disease Control and Prevention

"The Congress really wanked away their rights and obligations on the Iraq war."

You could argue that the moment we became involved in the UN and started sending "peacekeeping troops" around the world, we started letting someone other than Congress decide where our troops were going. And then we started getting into "police action" after "police action"... Go back to 1951 [time.com], long before you were born, and get an education on the silliness of Korea being a "police action" rather than an actual war from the perspective of the US and UN.

And then, of course, the failure to actually prosecute Korea as a real war is part and parcel of the ludicrous situation with mainland Red China today - our largest failure, to prevent the growth of the cancerous regime currently set up in Beijing.

There's no way to get back to running surpluses (and therefore starting to actually pay down the debt) without massive cuts in all of the big three (social security, medicare, and defense). All of these are arguably Constitutionally mandated functions (providing for the common defense and the general welfare), but the Constitution doesn't say anywhere that we have to fund them to the level that we do. The Constitution doesn't say we have to keep the retirement age at 62 or cap SS contributions above a certain income level, and it doesn't say we have to fund a military at more than 6 times the level of China, who has the second highest military expenditure.

Whenever someone talks about cutting defense, the right tries to redirect the conversation over to entitlement programs. Whenever someone talks about entitlement programs, the left tries to redirect the conversation over to defense. Meanwhile, the situation continues to get more dire, and both sides pass tax cuts to placate the masses, and that makes the situation even worse.

The harsh reality is we can no longer afford to provide entitlements at the level we have been in the past, AND we can no longer afford to support such a ludicrous level of military spending. Until our Congresspeople are willing to accept and act on that fact, and until the voters are willing to reward them instead of crucifying them for making the necessary budget cuts, we will continue to slide down into insolvency.

I'm going to assume you mean increase income tax rates. Historically, the US has a revenue of about 19% of GDP regardless of what the marginal tax rate is. So, increasing the marginal tax rate isn't a solution for over spending. That's one of many reasons why I support the proposal called "the fair tax" which would replace all existing payroll and income taxes with a consumption tax.

That's one of many reasons why I support the proposal called "the fair tax" which would replace all existing payroll and income taxes with a consumption tax.

And when they say "fair", they mean "provide they greatest benefit to the rich".

Consumption taxes are about as regressive as you can get.

Nice try, how about proving your statement with a little bit of explanation instead of just hoping that it's true. Have you actually read about the Fair Tax? Do you actually study economics and the current digrace of a tax code that we have right now? Are you really against simplifying the taxes so that they are so simple and transparent that politicians could no longer play favorites with their soup du jour special interests? Come on man, foul play! Don't defend the sucky status quo.

Nice try, how about proving your statement with a little bit of explanation instead of just hoping that it's true.

Simple consumption taxes are regressive. It's not really something that's up for debate.

Have you actually read about the Fair Tax?

Do you actually study economics and the current digrace of a tax code that we have right now? Are you really against simplifying the taxes so that they are so simple and transparent that politicians could no longer play favorites with their soup du jour special inter

There's no way to get back to running surpluses (and therefore starting to actually pay down the debt) without massive cuts in all of the big three (social security, medicare, and defense)

Repeat after me: Social Security hasn't got anything to do with our budget deficit.

All of these are arguably Constitutionally mandated functions (providing for the common defense and the general welfare), but the Constitution doesn't say anywhere that we have to fund them to the level that we do.

IIRC, the phrase you're paraphrasing is in the Preamble rather than among the Articles of the Constitution, and therefore doesn't actually have any legal status. (Though - again IIRC - the Articles do spec out defense.)

The harsh reality is we can no longer afford to... support such a ludicrous level of military spending.

In Go we try to play light moves, moves that serve a purpose without strengthening our opponent too much or dedicating too much of our resources to them. If I play up this side, then come down, maybe I lose one stone; but I can wedge you open with that stone, and build a strong position on the outside, reducing your potential gains. If I try to live in there, however, I wind up pulling out this huge, intense fight; if I win it I get a little gain and you get a big wall to attack from, and if I lose it I

There's no way to get back to running surpluses (and therefore starting to actually pay down the debt) without massive cuts in all of the big three (social security, medicare, and defense).

That's bullshit, and you should know it. We, as workers, pay into both Medicare and Social Security as a separate FICA tax on our wages. It's essentially a public insurance offering, not a government handout. We're paying for it directly, and if the government cuts it, then those of us paying in now are not going to get what we paid for. That's fraud, pure and simple.

If either program is going over budget, that is happening for one of two reasons:

The Medicare and Social Security caps and/or rates are set too low.

The government is stealing money to pay for other things.

Period. There is no good reason for either of those programs to be seen as a drain on our government's resources. Medicare and Social Security are basically separate from the federal budget. So if a politician claims that Medicare and Social Security are the reason our government is bleeding red, they're just trying to trick people into giving up social programs so that they can spend that money on more black ops and other crap that this country doesn't really need.

I challenge any of the politicians making such ludicrous claims to provide proof to the contrary.

The RICH, get richer by siphoning off public money into their businesses through lucrative contracts. The RICH also want a strong military to protect their assets. So, there's why military spending won't be reduced.

The RICH, get richer by not having to pay a livable wage or give benefits to their employees. They are perfectly content to receive tax breaks and let the middle class support them, as well as the poor through entitlements bought with tax dollars th

Social Security is OUTSIDE the general fund and people need to realize it was designed to be completely separated from the rest of the system - they are only lumping it in because it is under attack and they keep trying to STEAL money from it as if it were general revenue - which is is not.

Social Security is paid for and only needs occasional rises or declines to adjust to population changes. Its almost a FLAT tax except that it exempts the rich. It is about as much of a "lock box" as we've ever had legally; politically, its been under heavy assault from day one. If you thought private health insurance was bad, just wait for them to get their hands on social security... Of course, we've had additions made to Social Security to increase its costs and we've refused to make it adapt with the times - trying to subtly sabotage the program.

Social Security is extremely popular and the PEOPLE can mandate THEIR government to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare." The constitution only really limits government, if not prohibited by law, its legal. Its not the other way around - it need not say what it CAN do only what it can not do. Elementary school basic government covered this. Basic logic also covers this, as you have an infinite set of possible actions and a finite set of prohibited actions -- you list the negative set.

Now we talk like social security are general fund welfare programs but these are things WE ALL (except rich) pay into our whole lives and for generations now and we deserve to get what we paid for / invested in! I PAID for them and I'm fucking going to get my money back when I need it!

If the government can't pay back then the situation is so bad that the currency and economy are so bad that the alternatives are not going to work either (except for an elite minority.)

Medicare and the others are general fund programs and they do not operate the same way; they have problems because of their closer connection with the political machine.

"The constitution only really limits government, if not prohibited by law, its legal. Its not the other way around - it need not say what it CAN do only what it can not do. Elementary school basic government covered this. Basic logic also covers this, as you have an infinite set of possible actions and a finite set of prohibited actions -- you list the negative set."

You have it completely backwards. The Constitution limits what government is able to do because it only allows it to do what is explicitly list

Defense spending will not be cut because it's *one of the few legitimate and constitutionally required functions of government*. And political suicide.

Social security will not be cut because it would be political suicide. Instead, they will keep collecting for it, using the money for something else, and go bankrupt sometime in the not-to-distant future.

I'd eagerly go vote for someone who was willing to cut spending on defense, and I know a lot of people who agree with that sentiment. We spend way too much on it.

Unfortunately, the cuts would probably trickle down to hurt the lowliest people involved, probably "the troops", though it really needn't. I'm sure there's a lot of fat that could be cut out of the defense budget.

Unfortunately, the cuts would probably trickle down to hurt the lowliest people involved, probably "the troops", though it really needn't. I'm sure there's a lot of fat that could be cut out of the defense budget.

Yeah, like stuff the 'fiscal conservatives' insist on spending even when the Pentagon hasn't requested it.

The problem is that all the politicians want money spent in their own district, whether it's an Air Force base or a company that makes widgets for some kind of weapon system.

So yeah, the troops are the ones who get screwed. They're just ordinary folk, and don't merit the consideration of our corporate-owned Congress.

"Unfortunately, the cuts would probably trickle down to hurt the lowliest people involved, probably "the troops", though it really needn't. I'm sure there's a lot of fat that could be cut out of the defense budget."

Well, we could start by closing the majority of our bases around the world. I mean, do we really need such a presence in Europe? I'm not seriously worried about the Germans taking over again, nor of the Soviet Union crossing through Berlin.

Heck..we could still keep military superiority...but quit trying to defend the rest of the free world.

Hmm...hell, one of the reasons so many of the countries in the EU can have all that 'free healthcare' and other entitlements, is because they don't have to pay much for their military defense...the US does.

We should pull out of all those countries...and let them worry about defending themselves. I'm not just picking on Europe...but pretty much all of our bases that really aren't that strategic to the US.

Hmm...hell, one of the reasons so many of the countries in the EU can have all that 'free healthcare' and other entitlements, is because they don't have to pay much for their military defense...the US does.

That may be part of it, but the US still pays vast amounts of money for health care... it's just going to the insurance companies via premiums instead of the government via taxes.

"That may be part of it, but the US still pays vast amounts of money for health care... it's just going to the insurance companies via premiums instead of the government via taxes."

I don't understand this statement that the US still pays vast amounts of money for health care. The US federal govt hasn't ever paid shit for my health care. I pay the premiums...etc, and have been VERY satisfied by my coverage. Both while W2 employed...and when contracting and paying on my own (I LOVED stuffing a HSA with pre-t

Now..obamacare is gonna fsck that up..it is already hitting...and I forsee in next years, I'll be paying more and getting much less.

That's because that "liberal" bill had as much (or more) benefits for the insurance companies as it does for public, and didn't close a lot of loopholes that the companies are using to avoid the obligations while jacking up their rates.

The single most useful thing the Congress could do for US insurance rates (and thus indirectly for the public health) is to revoke the health insurance industry's exemption to antitrust laws. If they were competing rather than colluding, everyone (except their executives and

I highly doubt that without our bases the Germans would feel the need to build up a huge military. What are they afraid the French and the Poles would come after them?

War in Europe is not likely in the near future. We would need to keep at least one as a staging/refueling/medical area if we are to continue our wars in the mideast. Leaving only Ramstein AFB should be fine, and would indeed cut a lot of useless spending.

If we could stop our obsession with bombing poor brown people we could even close that one

We ALSO have to cut/reform Social Security and the Medicare/Medicaid fiasco.

Those are the other big gorillas in the room....and we can't get outta debt and on track unless we cut those back to reality too.

We can't afford the obamacare thing either...repeal that and replace it with real reform....they could start with letting medical insurance be sold across state lines for real competition.....works well for auto insurance...

I'm sure there's a lot of fat that could be cut out of the defense budget.

Such as? Which specific programs and expenditures that should be eliminated? It's real easy to go "Holy shit, we spend a lot on the DoD," much less clear what programs are specifically unnecessary and should be ended.

1. Honest question: Iraq, but not Afghanistan, I presume? Or do you include Afghanistan here, because the 9/11 attacks were not official actions of the Afghani government? Let's assume that reducing our involvement to 1 country would cut the cost (projected at $172 billion for this year) in half, so we've saved 90 billion.

2. 2nd engine program for the F35 multinational fighter. Savings: ~ $500 million. (Note, this is not "the entire F35 fighter program" that they don't want - it's simply the funding

constitutionality has jack-all to do with defense spending not being cut... simply imagine: if, for some reason, our current military were unconstitutional, do you really think anyone in power would give a damn?

It is not political suicide but inertia. The general public would rather cut the defense budget than Social Security(SS), but all the talk is how much SS is going to be cut. The general public would rather increase taxes for wealthier Americans, instead they game them a big cut.

We have elected people who cannot actually fix any problems, just point fingers at this or that because they are believe themselves infallible because they got elected.

Defense spending will not be cut because it's *one of the few legitimate and constitutionally required functions of government*.

There are many legitimate functions of government, but "defense spending" in general does not all go to Constitutionally-required functions. There aren't many Constitutionally required functions of government. Some of it goes to the Constitutionally-required function to protect the states within the U.S. from invasion, but most defense spending is used for functions which have, at best, a distant and speculative relation to that Constitutionally-required function.

Constant war is a constitutionally required function of the government? Perhaps the "Department of Defense" would be more aptly named the "Department of Foreign Military Intervention."

I also didn't know that warrantless surveillance by the NSA was a constitutionally required function of government; quite the contrary, such warrantless surveillance ought to be illegal due to the Fourth Amendment.

Let me tell you a parable. I have had pay cuts three years in a row now, but I managed to hang onto my job. My wife was not so lucky, has been out of work for a year.

I need to do a rather large capital outlay -- a roof on the house -- but I don't have the cash, and even if I could get the loan, it would be irresponsible to go deeper in debt right now, with my job in question and my wife out of work. Dig? As soon as things turn around, I'll be happy t

When there's so much wasteful spending, why focus on cutting something that may actually pay off, even if not immediately. Roll back the tax cuts for the wealthy, start closing military bases and end the war(s). Start closing the feeding troughs for corn farmers and oil companies.That will free up one hell of a lot of cash. Just half the money spent or slated to be spent in the Middle East wars would have fully funded every majorworthwhile ( and even some harebrained ) infrastructure project in the US. And

That's not a bad argument, but I have to point out what I perceive to be a poor analogy: you're absolutely correct regarding your roofing that, while it's definitely straddling the border between "useful" and "really really useful", it's not nearly as "critical" as, say, mortgage and food. However, the roofing is completely independent from your stream of income; having your current roof vs redoing the roof will not alter your pay grade one cent. On the other hand, investing in these scientific programs could (and probably will) stimulate the economy in a feed-forward loop of its own. The only issue with that plan is that this science/education funding is one of the longest-term goals out there: we probably wouldn't see the benefits of it for at least a decade or two, if not more. But by laying the groundwork now, we'd be much more prepared to make the big breakthroughs when our technology is ready. The roofing is just that, and nothing more. Investment in these long-term goals yield far more than just their up-front cost.

Defense and security: In 2010, some 20 percent of the budget, or $715 billion, will pay for defense and security-related international activities. The bulk of the spending in this category reflects the underlying costs of the Department of Defense and other security-related activities. The total also includes the cost of supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is expected to total $172 billion in 2010.

Social Security: Another 20 percent of the budget, or $708 billion, will pay for Social Security, which provided retirement benefits averaging $1,117 per month to 36 million retired workers (and their eligible dependents) in December 2009. Social Security also provided survivors’ benefits to 6.4 million surviving children and spouses of deceased workers and disability benefits to 9.7 million disabled workers and their eligible dependents in December 2009.

Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP: Three health insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) — will together account for 21 percent of the budget in 2010, or $753 billion. Nearly two-thirds of this amount, or $468 billion, will go to Medicare, which provides health coverage to around 46 million people who are over the age of 65 or have disabilities. The remainder of this category funds Medicaid and CHIP, which in a typical month in 2010 will provide health care or long-term care to about 64 million low-income children, parents, elderly people, and people with disabilities. Both Medicaid and CHIP require matching payments from the states.

That's the sales pitch friend. That's not the reality - if you're young you're never getting that money back (and chances are you don't expect to). The SS system is and was designed to be a direct transfer of income from the young to the old. Not in and of itself a terrible idea, but due to changes in life expectancy and demographics it just doesn't work any more. We need to change to a program that does.

Look at the budget in terms of revenue (where 100 is total federal revenue):

100 - Money given to the old and poor (SS, medi*, federal pensions, welfare)30 - defense10 - income on the debt20 - everything else

We need to cut spending across the board by almost half to get to where we're repaying the debt. Everthing has to be cut, and cut by nearly half. Cutting science and other useful programs is barely going to make an impact, but it's a needed prerequisite to cutting retirement programs. People aren't going to accept that they aren't going to get their "entitlement" before it's clear that everyone everywhere is sharing the pain, with no exemptions or sacred cows.

But there's no other option. We're spending 160% of what we take in, and that's just insane.

realize that part of the reason for that large deficit is the rate of taxation as a percentage of GDP is at historic lows

The rate of federal revenue is at about 19% of GDP, and tends to stay there regardless of where the marginal income/corporate tax rates are set. There's a nice graph here about 20% of the way down the page. Changing marginal tax rates on high earners, for example, is a feel-good measure that doesn't actually raise any more money (because people change their behavior in respone to tax rates, and often simply work less when the rewards are less). I've seen a nice graph of the wild swings in tax rates again

Much as the politicians would have you think so, Social Security isn't part of "the budget". It's a separate revenue stream.

Look at the numbers on your check stub sometimes. That's whey they call it "entitlement" - you're entitled to get yours back.

There is no entitlement to Social Security or "to get yours back". See: US Supreme Court case Flemming v. Nestor (1960).

Regardless of how it is sold to the masses, if you strip away the political theater and posturing your Social Security payments are essentially a welfare tax that can be redistributed as the government sees fit at any particular time. The government has no obligation pay a person Social Security no matter how much they have paid in.

However, those involved in budget matters often produce two sets of numbers, one without Social Security included in the budget totals and one with Social Security included. Thus, Social Security is still frequently treated as though it were part of the unified federal budget even though, technically, it no longer is.

Those IOUs are Treasury Bonds, so if the government defaults on those, then all the people, mutual funds, companies and countries investing in Treasury Bonds are also screwed, and the US becomes a third world nation.

Frankly, I think people should be absolutely PISSED about this. The point of SS was never to give the Gov another fund to borrow from. It was never supposed to be a backdoor general tax for the general budget. It is evidence of.... acting in bad faith with our assetts. Its one more reason that we should not trust them.

Put it this way...it is supposed to be a trust fund. What would the courts say if I ran a trust fund for you, and decided on my own to in

When you include non-DoD defense spending the total amount spent on defense far outstrips any anything else for 2010.
I think these guys do a good job of showing where the money goes on a macro level without losing too much detail. http://www.wallstats.com/blog/death-and-taxes-2010-released/ [wallstats.com]

Think about that. Almost 1 in 6 Americans is over 65 or disabled, receiving medicare. 1 in 5 is getting low-income assistance medicaid or disability.

Put those together and put it another way, for every 3 Americans, only 2 of those are working and have non-government healthcare. If those 110 million people don't contribute, 2 people are paying for the healtcare of every 3rd person. Holy crap, that is a lot of money.

Yes, when those post-docs lose their research funding they'll just keep researching in their garage at their own expense. There they will join the mass ranks of other volunteer scientists making new and groundbreaking discoveries every day.

We're talking about cutting well over $5 billion from science spending. Anyone that wants to pretend that won't destroy much of 'the media good science grows on' is delusional.

Some of that is obviously ideological (EPA, Clean *, etc.), but the rest is just stupid.

In addition to the long-term hazards of cutting back science (and education), austerity programs are exactly what government's *shouldnt* do when the economy sags. Every dollar they cut from a program is a dollar someone isn't going to be spending next year, so tax revenues will drop even further.

A government with any sense would establish a sustainable cost of operations, borrow money when times are bad, and pay off the loans when times are good.

Unfortunately, a republic (representative democracy) tends to become a 'politicianocracy', and politicians buy votes by spending money on stuff their supporters want. So nobody wants to pay down debt when times are good; they just want to take the opportunity to spend more.

a lot of other things are going to be on the "chopping block" so to speak as this depression unwinds.

Now that the bankers have stolen everything and are using the money to jack up prices and accumulate limitless power and wealth by toppling governments, expect lots of things to be on the chopping block.

It will sweep the globe, and many of the elite and puppet governments will fall.

Then you can start to worry about WW III because when people have empty bellies, things get nasty.

Speaking as a civil servant, I've seen this before. Politicians don't like cutting. They REALLY don't like cutting things that actually matter.

They're not serious about balancing the budget. They never are. Being serious about it means that you have to go after the big ticket items. Unfortunately the big ticket items are also popular, and that makes it hard to do politically. It doesn't help that your average voter is a moron who doesn't understand anything that takes longer then ten seconds to explain.

Let's cut the budget in anything that sets up a definite investment, and make sure we keep blowing money on weapons and a deparmtent of defense to make sure no one can invade the burned out wasteland left after the GOP wins in 2012.

For my part, I'll be investing overseas - maybe if I make enough money I can corrupt their government into forgetting to educate their citizenry too!Remember, whoever gives heavy metal poisoning to their children last, wins!!!

That may be the only thing on the list that I don't disagree with cutting. We won't end up implementing high speed rail in this country any time soon, and in another hundred years after our country falls apart, rebuilds, and then realizes the value of high speed rail, we can just as well borrow the plans of a better organized and managed country. And maybe if we're really on the ball then, we'll borrow their health care system, too.

Social Security spending is big because it's the retirement programme for everyone in our entire big country. It pays for itself. It doesn't contribute to any deficit or debt - to the contrary, Social Security is the largest lender to our debt, which is driven by war spending (that never dips, even in "peacetime").

Social Security doesn't need any changes to accommodate retiring Baby Boomers - it was already tweaked to collect enough for them, starting back in the 1980s. There is no projected problems with Social Security until at earliest 2039, which is a lot longer than any other programme. And if we want to fix that, all we have to do is collect Social Security payments on income above $105K, which limit currently makes Social Security a regressive tax.

None of the lies they're telling you to cheat you of your guaranteed retirement plan are true. They're preying on the post-Boomer generations' innuendo that "we'll never get Social Security", because they've been trying to steal it from you your whole life. Don't let them. Make them cut the $TRILLIONS in "defense" and "intelligence" budgets that are mostly waste, corruption and investments in war instead of peace and growth.

In 1945, the President’s science advisor, Vannevar Bush, wrote in Science, the Endless Frontier 1 that basic scientific research was “the pacemaker of technological progress” and that “new products and new processes do not appear full-grown. They are founded on new principles and new conceptions, which in turn are painstakingly developed by research in the purest realms of science.” He recommended the creation of what would become the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which was created in 1948, and the National Science Foundation, created in 1950.

The biomedical-research enterprise in the United States soon became the envy of other nations, as well as the primary source of the world’s new drugs and medical devices. Since 1945, biomedical research has been viewed as the essential contributor to improving the health of individuals and populations, in both the developed and developing world.

Financing of research was ensured by the successes in the early 1950s of polio vaccination, antibiotics, and antipsychotic agents. Equally dramatic advances in surgery and medical devices, such as cardiopulmonary bypass, dialysis, and organ transplantation, followed in the 1960s. In the 1990s, the conversion of the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and some cancers from uniformly fatal diseases to chronic conditions created an expectation that similar advances would occur for other devastating diseases.

What are you talkig about? We've got the latest "intelligent design". We teach that Global Warming is caused by SUVs, light bulbs are evil, innoculations cause mental disease, polar bears are almost completely gone, and people used to ride around on brontosaurus. We know that nuclear power plants will likely explode like a nuclear bomb, anything organic is good for you, diluting something until there is almost no chance that there is one molacule in a 50 gallon drum makes extremely powerful medicine, and wa

Exactly. Who needs science when you've got faith. Let those nasty terrorists try to spread their dirty nukes - we'll defeat them with the power of prayer because we believe, the Almighty will protect us, we will lay down our lives because we love Allah,......oh, wait a minute

Keep your defense and social security spending as is, and kill all your basic research and science. That's the way to the future.

Then wonder why so many American kids are functionally illiterate and start creating conspiracy theories about Chinese technology and badmouth globalization when technical jobs are outsourced to India...

The solution? Hire more lawyers, raise the managers' salaries, pay more bonuses to high executives.

Long before the last 3 decades of living on debt Americans could support a very high median level of living... they did it with a very small trade deficit, about the same level of workforce participation, a nearly equal government budget to GDP ratio and with FAR less productivity. What has changed fundamentally that it's impossible now?